Recently, China has once again seen a collective return wave of performance costumes. Parents of students at a middle school in Shaanxi province were accused of concentrating on a “seven-day no reason return” refund application after using the performance costumes, sparking public debate on the questioning of integrity and the abuse of rules. Some comments pointed out: “The moral collapse of one or two individuals is indeed an individual issue; the collective follow-up of a group of people should reflect the failure of the system.”
According to a report by “Xiaoxiang Morning News,” Mr. Xu, a Taobao shop owner in Huzhou, Zhejiang Province, reported that during the “2026 Campus Sports Culture and Art Festival” held by Danfeng County Junior Middle School in Shanxi Province, a class of students collectively purchased 20 sets of girls’ performance costumes, followed by a large-scale return of goods as the “seven-day no reason return” deadline approached. As of April 10, more than 10 sets have been returned with the number still increasing.
Videos provided by the merchant show that the returned clothing shows obvious signs of use, including stains on the cuffs, pant legs, loose threads, and pilling, which have seriously affected the resale. At the same time, the shop owner discovered on social media images of students wearing the clothes in question during rehearsals and formal performances, clearly contradicting the reasons of some parents for “activity cancellation” for returning the goods.
The report mentioned that the reasons for the returns were diverse, including “size discrepancy,” “weather-related activity cancellation,” “quality issues,” and so on. Mr. Xu stated that some parents initially applied for returns citing “activity cancellation,” but after showing videos of the performances, they changed their reason to “child’s dislike”; while some parents, after being informed of the existing performance evidence, claimed there were quality issues with the clothing.
He attempted to call the parents who requested returns multiple times but had difficulty establishing effective communication, either being unable to reach them or being hung up on directly. On April 11, Mr. Xu finally contacted one parent, who first claimed that “the performance required a costume change,” but after being informed of the rehearsal and performance videos, they switched their reason to claim that the clothing had quality issues with pilling. Mr. Xu believed that if it was indeed a quality issue, the goods should have been returned promptly upon receipt, rather than applying for a refund after multiple uses, which has significantly impacted the resale of the products. Eventually, the other party stated, “If there is an issue, contact the platform,” and then hung up.
The school responded on April 13, confirming the situation, but emphasizing that the purchase of performance costumes was “a voluntary act by parents and not organized by the school or teachers,” and because of the large number of classes, the school “could not directly intervene.”
Commentators have pointed out that in recent years, cases of “malicious returns” as a means of taking advantage have occurred frequently. Not only in performance costumes but items such as wedding supplies, stage props, festival decorations, and other scenically-themed products are easily subjected to the consumer chaos of being purchased, used, and then returned. On the surface, this incident appears to be a typical consumer dispute, but behind it reflects the rampant phenomenon of “rules arbitrage” and the fragility of the commercial trust system.
Some media commentary believes: “The moral collapse of one or two individuals is indeed an individual issue; the collective follow-up of a group of people should reflect the failure of the system,” Let’s not let “one-time consumption” lead to “collective moral decay.”
Campus activities are meant to be “opportunities for students to receive aesthetic and moral education, but have gone in the opposite direction,” “saving a sum on clothing costs seems like a benefit, but it actually exposes integrity in public.”
“Rules may have loopholes, but as parents, there should be a bottom line. Teaching children to seek only profit, exploit system loopholes, is akin to losing a watermelon to pick sesame seeds, gaining the ‘face’ of a few items of clothing but losing the ‘substance’ of integrity.”
“If children are enveloped by utilitarianism from an early age, not knowing respect, not following rules, only seeing profit without ethics, it will be difficult for them to become materials for upright and responsible social pillars in the future.”